Hi all,
Some of us plan to have a conversation at the WCONUSA unconference sessions about ENWP culture. Are there any recommended readings that you could suggest as preparation, particularly on the subject of how to reinforce or incentivize desirable user behavior? I think that Jonathan may have done some research on this topic for the Teahouse, and Ocassi may have for done research for TWA. I'm interested in applicable research as preparation both for the unconference discussion and for my planned video series that intends to inform and inspire new editors.
Thanks, Pine
This paper is on using badges to steer user behavior: https://www.cs.cornell.edu/home/kleinber/www13-badges.pdf
On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 7:42 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
Some of us plan to have a conversation at the WCONUSA unconference sessions about ENWP culture. Are there any recommended readings that you could suggest as preparation, particularly on the subject of how to reinforce or incentivize desirable user behavior? I think that Jonathan may have done some research on this topic for the Teahouse, and Ocassi may have for done research for TWA. I'm interested in applicable research as preparation both for the unconference discussion and for my planned video series that intends to inform and inspire new editors.
Thanks, Pine
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Certainly there are a lot of sites with badges that do seem to encourage certain behaviour. On Wikipedia, we have edit count and that seems to generate editcountitis which (when gamed) tends to favour lots of little housekeeping edits over content edits. But one of the things with badges on most sites is that the site assigns the badge. Here on Wikipedia, I can put any badge I want on my User Page (the pre-existing ones are mostly edit-count based but I can roll my own as some users do). Indeed as I discovered, other people can put badges on my user page and presumably take them away. As edit count is our primary KPI, it doesn't address "cultural" attributes. Should we be making more of an effort to promote other KPIs that emphasise positive behaviour like thanks (given and received)? Unfortunately our main interaction mechanism is writing on talk pages and it's hard to tell whether any contribution on a talk page is a "positive" behaviour or a negative one (short of some kind of sentiment analysis). This is an unfortunate consequence of using a wiki for a conversation rather than some more purpose-built tool.
In principle one takes a KPI and then creates a badge to reward a behaviour that improves that KPI. But that's all easier said than done.
For content improvements, there are probably some things we can do. For example, I presume looking at the edit deltas, we could tell if an edit to an article added a citation (a pair of ref tag in the new version that weren't there in the old version). Adding citations is a desirable behaviour that we could report on and give badges for (although obviously whether or not that citation in any way supports the claim cannot be determined, so the "gaming" of this is to add random citations to offline sources to lots of articles, which cannot be easily verified). In which case maybe we need to give a better score to an online citation on that grounds it is more likely to be verifiable).
But positive "culture" or positive social behaviour is harder to detect and reward. For example, we'd like to close the gendergap but firstly we don't have KPI that measures it on an ongoing basis because we don't actually know which contributors are male/female. And even if we had that KPI, what users or their behaviours would we reward for having positive impact on that KPI? In real-life, we might reward a customer who introduces a new customer. Or we might have a "finders fee" for someone who introduces a "new hire". How could we reward introducing new women to Wikipedia or encouraging them (perhaps through mentoring) to contribute more? Or would we reward contributors who contribute to articles about "women's topics" (which is addressing the content gendergap rather than the contributor gendergap, which aren't the same thing although many believe them to be closely linked). [I won't disgress into the challenge of deciding how "female" an article topic is.]
On some sites, you need certain badges to "unlock" certain extra functionalities. Are we happy for RfA to be a question of collecting up enough badges? AFAIK, the only auto-implemented badge we have on Wikipedia is the "auto-confirm" (4 days and 10 edits from memory).
I think badges are a good idea but I think the way Wikipedia is implemented makes it challenging to machine-identify desirable behaviours to reward (particularly for social/culture metrics). I think badges have (in the most part) to be machine-calculated and awarded or else it just becomes a popularity content (who's mates with who). I know Aaron (or someone) was toying with the idea of putting a value on each edit (presumably based on some training set of edit data that humans rated). I think it's not impossible to come up with some set of dimensions on which an edit might be valued and, using some human evaluations on a test set, come up with some kind of values for each dimension. It might be rough in the first instance but I guess if it incorporated some ongoing feedback mechanism, it could improve over time.
A cheap thing that we could do (and I don't think we do) is have edit count badges for "last week", "last month", "last year". ATM we only have "lifetime" counts, which makes it hard for the new user to get any quick positive acknowledgements for their efforts.
Kerry
-----Original Message----- From: Wiki-research-l [mailto:wiki-research-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Robert West Sent: Tuesday, 6 October 2015 1:05 PM To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org Cc: Marti Johnson mjohnson@wikimedia.org; Patrick Earley pearley@wikimedia.org; Jacob Orlowitz ocaasi@wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] Reinforcing or incentivizing desired user behavior
This paper is on using badges to steer user behavior: https://www.cs.cornell.edu/home/kleinber/www13-badges.pdf
On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 7:42 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
Some of us plan to have a conversation at the WCONUSA unconference sessions about ENWP culture. Are there any recommended readings that you could suggest as preparation, particularly on the subject of how to reinforce or incentivize desirable user behavior? I think that Jonathan may have done some research on this topic for the Teahouse, and Ocassi may have for done research for TWA. I'm interested in applicable research as preparation both for the unconference discussion and for my planned video series that intends to inform and inspire new editors.
Thanks, Pine
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
-- Up for a little language game? -- http://www.unfun.me
_______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Hoi, This whole notion of reward is quite powerful. It works best when processes have been designed with this in mind from the start. Again, Wikipedia is just part of what is done within the WMF. One project that has been worked on is a copy of the work done by Magnus Manske.. his effort is the game and it has clear objective tasks that people can do on the train, while waiting.
It is the kind of process that easily aggregates edits and consequently easily allows for badges, recognition etc. As far as I am aware this is not done (yet).
With more Wikipedias using Wikidata for its content. It is well worth expanding the attention to these efforts and see what more we can do to objectively heap praise for time well spend. Thanks, GerardM
On 6 October 2015 at 08:33, Kerry Raymond kerry.raymond@gmail.com wrote:
Certainly there are a lot of sites with badges that do seem to encourage certain behaviour. On Wikipedia, we have edit count and that seems to generate editcountitis which (when gamed) tends to favour lots of little housekeeping edits over content edits. But one of the things with badges on most sites is that the site assigns the badge. Here on Wikipedia, I can put any badge I want on my User Page (the pre-existing ones are mostly edit-count based but I can roll my own as some users do). Indeed as I discovered, other people can put badges on my user page and presumably take them away. As edit count is our primary KPI, it doesn't address "cultural" attributes. Should we be making more of an effort to promote other KPIs that emphasise positive behaviour like thanks (given and received)? Unfortunately our main interaction mechanism is writing on talk pages and it's hard to tell whether any contribution on a talk page is a "positive" behaviour or a negative one (short of some kind of sentiment analysis). This is an unfortunate consequence of using a wiki for a conversation rather than some more purpose-built tool.
In principle one takes a KPI and then creates a badge to reward a behaviour that improves that KPI. But that's all easier said than done.
For content improvements, there are probably some things we can do. For example, I presume looking at the edit deltas, we could tell if an edit to an article added a citation (a pair of ref tag in the new version that weren't there in the old version). Adding citations is a desirable behaviour that we could report on and give badges for (although obviously whether or not that citation in any way supports the claim cannot be determined, so the "gaming" of this is to add random citations to offline sources to lots of articles, which cannot be easily verified). In which case maybe we need to give a better score to an online citation on that grounds it is more likely to be verifiable).
But positive "culture" or positive social behaviour is harder to detect and reward. For example, we'd like to close the gendergap but firstly we don't have KPI that measures it on an ongoing basis because we don't actually know which contributors are male/female. And even if we had that KPI, what users or their behaviours would we reward for having positive impact on that KPI? In real-life, we might reward a customer who introduces a new customer. Or we might have a "finders fee" for someone who introduces a "new hire". How could we reward introducing new women to Wikipedia or encouraging them (perhaps through mentoring) to contribute more? Or would we reward contributors who contribute to articles about "women's topics" (which is addressing the content gendergap rather than the contributor gendergap, which aren't the same thing although many believe them to be closely linked). [I won't disgress into the challenge of deciding how "female" an article topic is.]
On some sites, you need certain badges to "unlock" certain extra functionalities. Are we happy for RfA to be a question of collecting up enough badges? AFAIK, the only auto-implemented badge we have on Wikipedia is the "auto-confirm" (4 days and 10 edits from memory).
I think badges are a good idea but I think the way Wikipedia is implemented makes it challenging to machine-identify desirable behaviours to reward (particularly for social/culture metrics). I think badges have (in the most part) to be machine-calculated and awarded or else it just becomes a popularity content (who's mates with who). I know Aaron (or someone) was toying with the idea of putting a value on each edit (presumably based on some training set of edit data that humans rated). I think it's not impossible to come up with some set of dimensions on which an edit might be valued and, using some human evaluations on a test set, come up with some kind of values for each dimension. It might be rough in the first instance but I guess if it incorporated some ongoing feedback mechanism, it could improve over time.
A cheap thing that we could do (and I don't think we do) is have edit count badges for "last week", "last month", "last year". ATM we only have "lifetime" counts, which makes it hard for the new user to get any quick positive acknowledgements for their efforts.
Kerry
-----Original Message----- From: Wiki-research-l [mailto:wiki-research-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Robert West Sent: Tuesday, 6 October 2015 1:05 PM To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities < wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org> Cc: Marti Johnson mjohnson@wikimedia.org; Patrick Earley < pearley@wikimedia.org>; Jacob Orlowitz ocaasi@wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] Reinforcing or incentivizing desired user behavior
This paper is on using badges to steer user behavior: https://www.cs.cornell.edu/home/kleinber/www13-badges.pdf
On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 7:42 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
Some of us plan to have a conversation at the WCONUSA unconference sessions about ENWP culture. Are there any recommended readings that you could suggest as preparation, particularly on the subject of how to reinforce or incentivize desirable user behavior? I think that Jonathan may have done some research on this topic for the Teahouse, and Ocassi may have for done research for TWA. I'm interested in applicable research as preparation both for the unconference discussion and for my planned video series that intends to inform and
inspire new editors.
Thanks, Pine
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
-- Up for a little language game? -- http://www.unfun.me
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
I thought if we had a "primary" badge or KPI system it was the content focussed ones and especially those related to Featured articles. Editcountitis is seen by many as a bit of a joke. But there many others including articles created and length of service. I do like the idea of celebrating our most thanked editors but I don't think the necessary information is currently public.
Regards
Jonathan
On 6 Oct 2015, at 07:33, Kerry Raymond kerry.raymond@gmail.com wrote:
Certainly there are a lot of sites with badges that do seem to encourage certain behaviour. On Wikipedia, we have edit count and that seems to generate editcountitis which (when gamed) tends to favour lots of little housekeeping edits over content edits. But one of the things with badges on most sites is that the site assigns the badge. Here on Wikipedia, I can put any badge I want on my User Page (the pre-existing ones are mostly edit-count based but I can roll my own as some users do). Indeed as I discovered, other people can put badges on my user page and presumably take them away. As edit count is our primary KPI, it doesn't address "cultural" attributes. Should we be making more of an effort to promote other KPIs that emphasise positive behaviour like thanks (given and received)? Unfortunately our main interaction mechanism is writing on talk pages and it's hard to tell whether any contribution on a talk page is a "positive" behaviour or a negative one (short of some kind of sentiment analysis). This is an unfortunate consequence of using a wiki for a conversation rather than some more purpose-built tool.
In principle one takes a KPI and then creates a badge to reward a behaviour that improves that KPI. But that's all easier said than done.
For content improvements, there are probably some things we can do. For example, I presume looking at the edit deltas, we could tell if an edit to an article added a citation (a pair of ref tag in the new version that weren't there in the old version). Adding citations is a desirable behaviour that we could report on and give badges for (although obviously whether or not that citation in any way supports the claim cannot be determined, so the "gaming" of this is to add random citations to offline sources to lots of articles, which cannot be easily verified). In which case maybe we need to give a better score to an online citation on that grounds it is more likely to be verifiable).
But positive "culture" or positive social behaviour is harder to detect and reward. For example, we'd like to close the gendergap but firstly we don't have KPI that measures it on an ongoing basis because we don't actually know which contributors are male/female. And even if we had that KPI, what users or their behaviours would we reward for having positive impact on that KPI? In real-life, we might reward a customer who introduces a new customer. Or we might have a "finders fee" for someone who introduces a "new hire". How could we reward introducing new women to Wikipedia or encouraging them (perhaps through mentoring) to contribute more? Or would we reward contributors who contribute to articles about "women's topics" (which is addressing the content gendergap rather than the contributor gendergap, which aren't the same thing although many believe them to be closely linked). [I won't disgress into the challenge of deciding how "female" an article topic is.]
On some sites, you need certain badges to "unlock" certain extra functionalities. Are we happy for RfA to be a question of collecting up enough badges? AFAIK, the only auto-implemented badge we have on Wikipedia is the "auto-confirm" (4 days and 10 edits from memory).
I think badges are a good idea but I think the way Wikipedia is implemented makes it challenging to machine-identify desirable behaviours to reward (particularly for social/culture metrics). I think badges have (in the most part) to be machine-calculated and awarded or else it just becomes a popularity content (who's mates with who). I know Aaron (or someone) was toying with the idea of putting a value on each edit (presumably based on some training set of edit data that humans rated). I think it's not impossible to come up with some set of dimensions on which an edit might be valued and, using some human evaluations on a test set, come up with some kind of values for each dimension. It might be rough in the first instance but I guess if it incorporated some ongoing feedback mechanism, it could improve over time.
A cheap thing that we could do (and I don't think we do) is have edit count badges for "last week", "last month", "last year". ATM we only have "lifetime" counts, which makes it hard for the new user to get any quick positive acknowledgements for their efforts.
Kerry
-----Original Message----- From: Wiki-research-l [mailto:wiki-research-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Robert West Sent: Tuesday, 6 October 2015 1:05 PM To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org Cc: Marti Johnson mjohnson@wikimedia.org; Patrick Earley pearley@wikimedia.org; Jacob Orlowitz ocaasi@wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] Reinforcing or incentivizing desired user behavior
This paper is on using badges to steer user behavior: https://www.cs.cornell.edu/home/kleinber/www13-badges.pdf
On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 7:42 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote: Hi all,
Some of us plan to have a conversation at the WCONUSA unconference sessions about ENWP culture. Are there any recommended readings that you could suggest as preparation, particularly on the subject of how to reinforce or incentivize desirable user behavior? I think that Jonathan may have done some research on this topic for the Teahouse, and Ocassi may have for done research for TWA. I'm interested in applicable research as preparation both for the unconference discussion and for my planned video series that intends to inform and inspire new editors.
Thanks, Pine
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
-- Up for a little language game? -- http://www.unfun.me
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 12:25 AM, WereSpielChequers < werespielchequers@gmail.com> wrote:
I thought if we had a "primary" badge or KPI system it was the content focussed ones and especially those related to Featured articles.
+1 Though as discussed, almost anything automated can be 'gamed' (in the negative sense), and anything that requires human-discretion can too (either by someone placing an unwarranted award, or by someone placing an award that others might vociferously disagree with, e.g a diplomacy barnstar). Enwiki's existing profusion of barnstars and other award types are most easily found via https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Barnstar_pages
Editcountitis is seen by many as a bit of a joke. But there many others
including articles created and length of service.
I'd love to have the output from various of the offwiki tools, available as a "module/template" that I could optionally embed in my userpage at any wiki. E.g. the lists and barcharts, from places like: http://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/pages/ http://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/ and numerical counts of (non-automatic) patrols and reviews that we've contributed, and other tweaked items from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:User_toolbox
I do like the idea of celebrating our most thanked editors but I don't think the necessary information is currently public.
The "Thank" itself is publicly logged, just not which edit it was sent for. Fae collects monthly top 10 "Thankers" and "Thanked" on various projects, https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Faebot/thanks IIRC, projects must opt-in, and individuals can opt-out. (discussed in the thread starting here: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2015-February/076731.html )
On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 11:33 PM, Kerry Raymond kerry.raymond@gmail.com wrote:
[...] Unfortunately our main interaction mechanism is writing on talk pages and it's hard to tell whether any contribution on a talk page is a "positive" behaviour or a negative one (short of some kind of sentiment analysis). This is an unfortunate consequence of using a wiki for a conversation rather than some more purpose-built tool.
Obligatory mention of Flow ;-) All sorts of things should be possible with a structured system like this. For example the number of topics that an editor "Marks as resolved" (and isn't subsequently reverted). Perhaps/especially on specific pages such as helpdesks. E.g. Frwiki has been experimenting with a mixture of their old template system (in the "Summary" area) and Flow's "Resolved" status, at https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Forum_des_nouveaux/Flow - open the ToC to see the resolved topics in a lighter text color, and skim down the page looking at the blue/red templates (which denote: questions that need more information from the original poster, and questions that aren't appropriate for that page).
There was also an editfilter tracking the usage of the WikiLove extension, but it appears that was disabled in February 2015 due to performance issues with too many concurrent editfilters (IIUC). old results: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:AbuseLog&wpSearchFilt... However, there is still a database table tracking these Wikilove actions, just without an onwiki UI, so those details could perhaps be utilized, too.
On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 5:56 PM, Nick Wilson (Quiddity) < nwilson@wikimedia.org> wrote:
There was also an editfilter tracking the usage of the WikiLove extension, but it appears that was disabled in February 2015 due to performance issues with too many concurrent editfilters (IIUC). old results: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:AbuseLog&wpSearchFilt... However, there is still a database table tracking these Wikilove actions, just without an onwiki UI, so those details could perhaps be utilized, too.
Indeed they could! Top Wiklove recipients in the past year: http://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/364
-- Nick / Quiddity
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Kerry,
Thanks so much for the comments. I will bring up the subjects of badges and cobtributor KPIs with Luis and/or Lila when I have a minute to refine my thinking.
Pine On Oct 6, 2015 2:33 AM, "Kerry Raymond" kerry.raymond@gmail.com wrote:
Certainly there are a lot of sites with badges that do seem to encourage certain behaviour. On Wikipedia, we have edit count and that seems to generate editcountitis which (when gamed) tends to favour lots of little housekeeping edits over content edits. But one of the things with badges on most sites is that the site assigns the badge. Here on Wikipedia, I can put any badge I want on my User Page (the pre-existing ones are mostly edit-count based but I can roll my own as some users do). Indeed as I discovered, other people can put badges on my user page and presumably take them away. As edit count is our primary KPI, it doesn't address "cultural" attributes. Should we be making more of an effort to promote other KPIs that emphasise positive behaviour like thanks (given and received)? Unfortunately our main interaction mechanism is writing on talk pages and it's hard to tell whether any contribution on a talk page is a "positive" behaviour or a negative one (short of some kind of sentiment analysis). This is an unfortunate consequence of using a wiki for a conversation rather than some more purpose-built tool.
In principle one takes a KPI and then creates a badge to reward a behaviour that improves that KPI. But that's all easier said than done.
For content improvements, there are probably some things we can do. For example, I presume looking at the edit deltas, we could tell if an edit to an article added a citation (a pair of ref tag in the new version that weren't there in the old version). Adding citations is a desirable behaviour that we could report on and give badges for (although obviously whether or not that citation in any way supports the claim cannot be determined, so the "gaming" of this is to add random citations to offline sources to lots of articles, which cannot be easily verified). In which case maybe we need to give a better score to an online citation on that grounds it is more likely to be verifiable).
But positive "culture" or positive social behaviour is harder to detect and reward. For example, we'd like to close the gendergap but firstly we don't have KPI that measures it on an ongoing basis because we don't actually know which contributors are male/female. And even if we had that KPI, what users or their behaviours would we reward for having positive impact on that KPI? In real-life, we might reward a customer who introduces a new customer. Or we might have a "finders fee" for someone who introduces a "new hire". How could we reward introducing new women to Wikipedia or encouraging them (perhaps through mentoring) to contribute more? Or would we reward contributors who contribute to articles about "women's topics" (which is addressing the content gendergap rather than the contributor gendergap, which aren't the same thing although many believe them to be closely linked). [I won't disgress into the challenge of deciding how "female" an article topic is.]
On some sites, you need certain badges to "unlock" certain extra functionalities. Are we happy for RfA to be a question of collecting up enough badges? AFAIK, the only auto-implemented badge we have on Wikipedia is the "auto-confirm" (4 days and 10 edits from memory).
I think badges are a good idea but I think the way Wikipedia is implemented makes it challenging to machine-identify desirable behaviours to reward (particularly for social/culture metrics). I think badges have (in the most part) to be machine-calculated and awarded or else it just becomes a popularity content (who's mates with who). I know Aaron (or someone) was toying with the idea of putting a value on each edit (presumably based on some training set of edit data that humans rated). I think it's not impossible to come up with some set of dimensions on which an edit might be valued and, using some human evaluations on a test set, come up with some kind of values for each dimension. It might be rough in the first instance but I guess if it incorporated some ongoing feedback mechanism, it could improve over time.
A cheap thing that we could do (and I don't think we do) is have edit count badges for "last week", "last month", "last year". ATM we only have "lifetime" counts, which makes it hard for the new user to get any quick positive acknowledgements for their efforts.
Kerry
-----Original Message----- From: Wiki-research-l [mailto:wiki-research-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Robert West Sent: Tuesday, 6 October 2015 1:05 PM To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities < wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org> Cc: Marti Johnson mjohnson@wikimedia.org; Patrick Earley < pearley@wikimedia.org>; Jacob Orlowitz ocaasi@wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] Reinforcing or incentivizing desired user behavior
This paper is on using badges to steer user behavior: https://www.cs.cornell.edu/home/kleinber/www13-badges.pdf
On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 7:42 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
Some of us plan to have a conversation at the WCONUSA unconference sessions about ENWP culture. Are there any recommended readings that you could suggest as preparation, particularly on the subject of how to reinforce or incentivize desirable user behavior? I think that Jonathan may have done some research on this topic for the Teahouse, and Ocassi may have for done research for TWA. I'm interested in applicable research as preparation both for the unconference discussion and for my planned video series that intends to inform and
inspire new editors.
Thanks, Pine
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
-- Up for a little language game? -- http://www.unfun.me
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
I think there's a lot to be done there (probably will blog soon about my weekend experimenting with Genius, which had pretty extensive systems for this).
It is an interesting prioritization question: doing it thoroughly/systematically would require a lot of software investment, especially since we don't have structured conversation pages (which are the basis for a lot of similar contributor recognition systems).
Luis
On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 5:25 AM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Kerry,
Thanks so much for the comments. I will bring up the subjects of badges and cobtributor KPIs with Luis and/or Lila when I have a minute to refine my thinking.
Pine On Oct 6, 2015 2:33 AM, "Kerry Raymond" kerry.raymond@gmail.com wrote:
Certainly there are a lot of sites with badges that do seem to encourage certain behaviour. On Wikipedia, we have edit count and that seems to generate editcountitis which (when gamed) tends to favour lots of little housekeeping edits over content edits. But one of the things with badges on most sites is that the site assigns the badge. Here on Wikipedia, I can put any badge I want on my User Page (the pre-existing ones are mostly edit-count based but I can roll my own as some users do). Indeed as I discovered, other people can put badges on my user page and presumably take them away. As edit count is our primary KPI, it doesn't address "cultural" attributes. Should we be making more of an effort to promote other KPIs that emphasise positive behaviour like thanks (given and received)? Unfortunately our main interaction mechanism is writing on talk pages and it's hard to tell whether any contribution on a talk page is a "positive" behaviour or a negative one (short of some kind of sentiment analysis). This is an unfortunate consequence of using a wiki for a conversation rather than some more purpose-built tool.
In principle one takes a KPI and then creates a badge to reward a behaviour that improves that KPI. But that's all easier said than done.
For content improvements, there are probably some things we can do. For example, I presume looking at the edit deltas, we could tell if an edit to an article added a citation (a pair of ref tag in the new version that weren't there in the old version). Adding citations is a desirable behaviour that we could report on and give badges for (although obviously whether or not that citation in any way supports the claim cannot be determined, so the "gaming" of this is to add random citations to offline sources to lots of articles, which cannot be easily verified). In which case maybe we need to give a better score to an online citation on that grounds it is more likely to be verifiable).
But positive "culture" or positive social behaviour is harder to detect and reward. For example, we'd like to close the gendergap but firstly we don't have KPI that measures it on an ongoing basis because we don't actually know which contributors are male/female. And even if we had that KPI, what users or their behaviours would we reward for having positive impact on that KPI? In real-life, we might reward a customer who introduces a new customer. Or we might have a "finders fee" for someone who introduces a "new hire". How could we reward introducing new women to Wikipedia or encouraging them (perhaps through mentoring) to contribute more? Or would we reward contributors who contribute to articles about "women's topics" (which is addressing the content gendergap rather than the contributor gendergap, which aren't the same thing although many believe them to be closely linked). [I won't disgress into the challenge of deciding how "female" an article topic is.]
On some sites, you need certain badges to "unlock" certain extra functionalities. Are we happy for RfA to be a question of collecting up enough badges? AFAIK, the only auto-implemented badge we have on Wikipedia is the "auto-confirm" (4 days and 10 edits from memory).
I think badges are a good idea but I think the way Wikipedia is implemented makes it challenging to machine-identify desirable behaviours to reward (particularly for social/culture metrics). I think badges have (in the most part) to be machine-calculated and awarded or else it just becomes a popularity content (who's mates with who). I know Aaron (or someone) was toying with the idea of putting a value on each edit (presumably based on some training set of edit data that humans rated). I think it's not impossible to come up with some set of dimensions on which an edit might be valued and, using some human evaluations on a test set, come up with some kind of values for each dimension. It might be rough in the first instance but I guess if it incorporated some ongoing feedback mechanism, it could improve over time.
A cheap thing that we could do (and I don't think we do) is have edit count badges for "last week", "last month", "last year". ATM we only have "lifetime" counts, which makes it hard for the new user to get any quick positive acknowledgements for their efforts.
Kerry
-----Original Message----- From: Wiki-research-l [mailto:wiki-research-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Robert West Sent: Tuesday, 6 October 2015 1:05 PM To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities < wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org> Cc: Marti Johnson mjohnson@wikimedia.org; Patrick Earley < pearley@wikimedia.org>; Jacob Orlowitz ocaasi@wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] Reinforcing or incentivizing desired user behavior
This paper is on using badges to steer user behavior: https://www.cs.cornell.edu/home/kleinber/www13-badges.pdf
On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 7:42 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
Some of us plan to have a conversation at the WCONUSA unconference sessions about ENWP culture. Are there any recommended readings that you could suggest as preparation, particularly on the subject of how to reinforce or incentivize desirable user behavior? I think that Jonathan may have done some research on this topic for the Teahouse, and Ocassi may have for done research for TWA. I'm interested in applicable research as preparation both for the unconference discussion and for my planned video series that intends to inform and
inspire new editors.
Thanks, Pine
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
-- Up for a little language game? -- http://www.unfun.me
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Thanks for taking an interest, Luis. This is one resource intensive project that I think may be worth the investment. WMF is getting a fair amount of flak for growing its budget at rates far higher than its growth in content contributors. (Just imagine what would happen if a chapter did this.) I think that making Wikipedia content contribution be a more emotionally rewarding experience, perhaps by using positive reinforcement in ways suggested by Kerry, might be helpful in our editor engagement. Are there any chances of starting early work on a project along these lines in Q3, perhaps aligned with the work on Wikiproject X and on improving ENWP mentorship?
Pine On Oct 13, 2015 6:43 PM, "Luis Villa" lvilla@wikimedia.org wrote:
I think there's a lot to be done there (probably will blog soon about my weekend experimenting with Genius, which had pretty extensive systems for this).
It is an interesting prioritization question: doing it thoroughly/systematically would require a lot of software investment, especially since we don't have structured conversation pages (which are the basis for a lot of similar contributor recognition systems).
Luis
On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 5:25 AM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Kerry,
Thanks so much for the comments. I will bring up the subjects of badges and cobtributor KPIs with Luis and/or Lila when I have a minute to refine my thinking.
Pine On Oct 6, 2015 2:33 AM, "Kerry Raymond" kerry.raymond@gmail.com wrote:
Certainly there are a lot of sites with badges that do seem to encourage certain behaviour. On Wikipedia, we have edit count and that seems to generate editcountitis which (when gamed) tends to favour lots of little housekeeping edits over content edits. But one of the things with badges on most sites is that the site assigns the badge. Here on Wikipedia, I can put any badge I want on my User Page (the pre-existing ones are mostly edit-count based but I can roll my own as some users do). Indeed as I discovered, other people can put badges on my user page and presumably take them away. As edit count is our primary KPI, it doesn't address "cultural" attributes. Should we be making more of an effort to promote other KPIs that emphasise positive behaviour like thanks (given and received)? Unfortunately our main interaction mechanism is writing on talk pages and it's hard to tell whether any contribution on a talk page is a "positive" behaviour or a negative one (short of some kind of sentiment analysis). This is an unfortunate consequence of using a wiki for a conversation rather than some more purpose-built tool.
In principle one takes a KPI and then creates a badge to reward a behaviour that improves that KPI. But that's all easier said than done.
For content improvements, there are probably some things we can do. For example, I presume looking at the edit deltas, we could tell if an edit to an article added a citation (a pair of ref tag in the new version that weren't there in the old version). Adding citations is a desirable behaviour that we could report on and give badges for (although obviously whether or not that citation in any way supports the claim cannot be determined, so the "gaming" of this is to add random citations to offline sources to lots of articles, which cannot be easily verified). In which case maybe we need to give a better score to an online citation on that grounds it is more likely to be verifiable).
But positive "culture" or positive social behaviour is harder to detect and reward. For example, we'd like to close the gendergap but firstly we don't have KPI that measures it on an ongoing basis because we don't actually know which contributors are male/female. And even if we had that KPI, what users or their behaviours would we reward for having positive impact on that KPI? In real-life, we might reward a customer who introduces a new customer. Or we might have a "finders fee" for someone who introduces a "new hire". How could we reward introducing new women to Wikipedia or encouraging them (perhaps through mentoring) to contribute more? Or would we reward contributors who contribute to articles about "women's topics" (which is addressing the content gendergap rather than the contributor gendergap, which aren't the same thing although many believe them to be closely linked). [I won't disgress into the challenge of deciding how "female" an article topic is.]
On some sites, you need certain badges to "unlock" certain extra functionalities. Are we happy for RfA to be a question of collecting up enough badges? AFAIK, the only auto-implemented badge we have on Wikipedia is the "auto-confirm" (4 days and 10 edits from memory).
I think badges are a good idea but I think the way Wikipedia is implemented makes it challenging to machine-identify desirable behaviours to reward (particularly for social/culture metrics). I think badges have (in the most part) to be machine-calculated and awarded or else it just becomes a popularity content (who's mates with who). I know Aaron (or someone) was toying with the idea of putting a value on each edit (presumably based on some training set of edit data that humans rated). I think it's not impossible to come up with some set of dimensions on which an edit might be valued and, using some human evaluations on a test set, come up with some kind of values for each dimension. It might be rough in the first instance but I guess if it incorporated some ongoing feedback mechanism, it could improve over time.
A cheap thing that we could do (and I don't think we do) is have edit count badges for "last week", "last month", "last year". ATM we only have "lifetime" counts, which makes it hard for the new user to get any quick positive acknowledgements for their efforts.
Kerry
-----Original Message----- From: Wiki-research-l [mailto: wiki-research-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Robert West Sent: Tuesday, 6 October 2015 1:05 PM To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities < wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org> Cc: Marti Johnson mjohnson@wikimedia.org; Patrick Earley < pearley@wikimedia.org>; Jacob Orlowitz ocaasi@wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] Reinforcing or incentivizing desired user behavior
This paper is on using badges to steer user behavior: https://www.cs.cornell.edu/home/kleinber/www13-badges.pdf
On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 7:42 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
Some of us plan to have a conversation at the WCONUSA unconference sessions about ENWP culture. Are there any recommended readings that you could suggest as preparation, particularly on the subject of how to reinforce or incentivize desirable user behavior? I think that Jonathan may have done some research on this topic for the Teahouse, and Ocassi may have for done research for TWA. I'm interested in applicable research as preparation both for the unconference discussion and for my planned video series that intends to inform and
inspire new editors.
Thanks, Pine
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
-- Up for a little language game? -- http://www.unfun.me
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
-- Luis Villa Sr. Director of Community Engagement Wikimedia Foundation *Working towards a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge.*
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
We have a complex set of "badges", some, as Kerry pointed out are available to everyone who qualifies for them, some are based on the statistics of your account - tenure, edit count, articles created. Others are based on things you've been awarded by others, the bronze stars for featured articles, but also userboxes for everything from userrights to number of DYKs. Barnstars are a key subset that can only be awarded by others. There are Barnstars available for a huge range of things, even civility and diplomacy. It would be interesting and probably salutary to do a study on which Barnstars are awarded, my suspicion is that the anti vandalism ones may well be the most frequent. I would also encourage everyone to lead by example and actually use the Barnstar system for people who have made extraordinary contributions. But be careful not to devalue the system by for example giving one to everyone who reports a bug in visual editor - in the past when we had lots of adolescents and teenagers in the community there was a craze for creating secret pages with a Barnstar award for finding them; so if you give out Barnstars too freely you risk being thought of as the sort of immature adolescent that usually makes that sort of mistake.
Regards
Jonathan
On 14 Oct 2015, at 02:42, Luis Villa lvilla@wikimedia.org wrote:
I think there's a lot to be done there (probably will blog soon about my weekend experimenting with Genius, which had pretty extensive systems for this).
It is an interesting prioritization question: doing it thoroughly/systematically would require a lot of software investment, especially since we don't have structured conversation pages (which are the basis for a lot of similar contributor recognition systems).
Luis
On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 5:25 AM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote: Kerry,
Thanks so much for the comments. I will bring up the subjects of badges and cobtributor KPIs with Luis and/or Lila when I have a minute to refine my thinking.
Pine
On Oct 6, 2015 2:33 AM, "Kerry Raymond" kerry.raymond@gmail.com wrote: Certainly there are a lot of sites with badges that do seem to encourage certain behaviour. On Wikipedia, we have edit count and that seems to generate editcountitis which (when gamed) tends to favour lots of little housekeeping edits over content edits. But one of the things with badges on most sites is that the site assigns the badge. Here on Wikipedia, I can put any badge I want on my User Page (the pre-existing ones are mostly edit-count based but I can roll my own as some users do). Indeed as I discovered, other people can put badges on my user page and presumably take them away. As edit count is our primary KPI, it doesn't address "cultural" attributes. Should we be making more of an effort to promote other KPIs that emphasise positive behaviour like thanks (given and received)? Unfortunately our main interaction mechanism is writing on talk pages and it's hard to tell whether any contribution on a talk page is a "positive" behaviour or a negative one (short of some kind of sentiment analysis). This is an unfortunate consequence of using a wiki for a conversation rather than some more purpose-built tool.
In principle one takes a KPI and then creates a badge to reward a behaviour that improves that KPI. But that's all easier said than done.
For content improvements, there are probably some things we can do. For example, I presume looking at the edit deltas, we could tell if an edit to an article added a citation (a pair of ref tag in the new version that weren't there in the old version). Adding citations is a desirable behaviour that we could report on and give badges for (although obviously whether or not that citation in any way supports the claim cannot be determined, so the "gaming" of this is to add random citations to offline sources to lots of articles, which cannot be easily verified). In which case maybe we need to give a better score to an online citation on that grounds it is more likely to be verifiable).
But positive "culture" or positive social behaviour is harder to detect and reward. For example, we'd like to close the gendergap but firstly we don't have KPI that measures it on an ongoing basis because we don't actually know which contributors are male/female. And even if we had that KPI, what users or their behaviours would we reward for having positive impact on that KPI? In real-life, we might reward a customer who introduces a new customer. Or we might have a "finders fee" for someone who introduces a "new hire". How could we reward introducing new women to Wikipedia or encouraging them (perhaps through mentoring) to contribute more? Or would we reward contributors who contribute to articles about "women's topics" (which is addressing the content gendergap rather than the contributor gendergap, which aren't the same thing although many believe them to be closely linked). [I won't disgress into the challenge of deciding how "female" an article topic is.]
On some sites, you need certain badges to "unlock" certain extra functionalities. Are we happy for RfA to be a question of collecting up enough badges? AFAIK, the only auto-implemented badge we have on Wikipedia is the "auto-confirm" (4 days and 10 edits from memory).
I think badges are a good idea but I think the way Wikipedia is implemented makes it challenging to machine-identify desirable behaviours to reward (particularly for social/culture metrics). I think badges have (in the most part) to be machine-calculated and awarded or else it just becomes a popularity content (who's mates with who). I know Aaron (or someone) was toying with the idea of putting a value on each edit (presumably based on some training set of edit data that humans rated). I think it's not impossible to come up with some set of dimensions on which an edit might be valued and, using some human evaluations on a test set, come up with some kind of values for each dimension. It might be rough in the first instance but I guess if it incorporated some ongoing feedback mechanism, it could improve over time.
A cheap thing that we could do (and I don't think we do) is have edit count badges for "last week", "last month", "last year". ATM we only have "lifetime" counts, which makes it hard for the new user to get any quick positive acknowledgements for their efforts.
Kerry
-----Original Message----- From: Wiki-research-l [mailto:wiki-research-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Robert West Sent: Tuesday, 6 October 2015 1:05 PM To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org Cc: Marti Johnson mjohnson@wikimedia.org; Patrick Earley pearley@wikimedia.org; Jacob Orlowitz ocaasi@wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] Reinforcing or incentivizing desired user behavior
This paper is on using badges to steer user behavior: https://www.cs.cornell.edu/home/kleinber/www13-badges.pdf
On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 7:42 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
Some of us plan to have a conversation at the WCONUSA unconference sessions about ENWP culture. Are there any recommended readings that you could suggest as preparation, particularly on the subject of how to reinforce or incentivize desirable user behavior? I think that Jonathan may have done some research on this topic for the Teahouse, and Ocassi may have for done research for TWA. I'm interested in applicable research as preparation both for the unconference discussion and for my planned video series that intends to inform and inspire new editors.
Thanks, Pine
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
-- Up for a little language game? -- http://www.unfun.me
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
-- Luis Villa Sr. Director of Community Engagement Wikimedia Foundation Working towards a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
As much as I like the barnstar system, it's highly subjective and inconsistent. I'd like to see a more systematic approach. Perhaps this could be combined with some of Aaron's work about edit quality.
On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 2:52 AM, WereSpielChequers < werespielchequers@gmail.com> wrote:
We have a complex set of "badges", some, as Kerry pointed out are available to everyone who qualifies for them, some are based on the statistics of your account - tenure, edit count, articles created. Others are based on things you've been awarded by others, the bronze stars for featured articles, but also userboxes for everything from userrights to number of DYKs. Barnstars are a key subset that can only be awarded by others. There are Barnstars available for a huge range of things, even civility and diplomacy. It would be interesting and probably salutary to do a study on which Barnstars are awarded, my suspicion is that the anti vandalism ones may well be the most frequent. I would also encourage everyone to lead by example and actually use the Barnstar system for people who have made extraordinary contributions. But be careful not to devalue the system by for example giving one to everyone who reports a bug in visual editor - in the past when we had lots of adolescents and teenagers in the community there was a craze for creating secret pages with a Barnstar award for finding them; so if you give out Barnstars too freely you risk being thought of as the sort of immature adolescent that usually makes that sort of mistake.
Regards
Jonathan
On 14 Oct 2015, at 02:42, Luis Villa lvilla@wikimedia.org wrote:
I think there's a lot to be done there (probably will blog soon about my weekend experimenting with Genius, which had pretty extensive systems for this).
It is an interesting prioritization question: doing it thoroughly/systematically would require a lot of software investment, especially since we don't have structured conversation pages (which are the basis for a lot of similar contributor recognition systems).
Luis
On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 5:25 AM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Kerry,
Thanks so much for the comments. I will bring up the subjects of badges and cobtributor KPIs with Luis and/or Lila when I have a minute to refine my thinking.
Pine On Oct 6, 2015 2:33 AM, "Kerry Raymond" kerry.raymond@gmail.com wrote:
Certainly there are a lot of sites with badges that do seem to encourage certain behaviour. On Wikipedia, we have edit count and that seems to generate editcountitis which (when gamed) tends to favour lots of little housekeeping edits over content edits. But one of the things with badges on most sites is that the site assigns the badge. Here on Wikipedia, I can put any badge I want on my User Page (the pre-existing ones are mostly edit-count based but I can roll my own as some users do). Indeed as I discovered, other people can put badges on my user page and presumably take them away. As edit count is our primary KPI, it doesn't address "cultural" attributes. Should we be making more of an effort to promote other KPIs that emphasise positive behaviour like thanks (given and received)? Unfortunately our main interaction mechanism is writing on talk pages and it's hard to tell whether any contribution on a talk page is a "positive" behaviour or a negative one (short of some kind of sentiment analysis). This is an unfortunate consequence of using a wiki for a conversation rather than some more purpose-built tool.
In principle one takes a KPI and then creates a badge to reward a behaviour that improves that KPI. But that's all easier said than done.
For content improvements, there are probably some things we can do. For example, I presume looking at the edit deltas, we could tell if an edit to an article added a citation (a pair of ref tag in the new version that weren't there in the old version). Adding citations is a desirable behaviour that we could report on and give badges for (although obviously whether or not that citation in any way supports the claim cannot be determined, so the "gaming" of this is to add random citations to offline sources to lots of articles, which cannot be easily verified). In which case maybe we need to give a better score to an online citation on that grounds it is more likely to be verifiable).
But positive "culture" or positive social behaviour is harder to detect and reward. For example, we'd like to close the gendergap but firstly we don't have KPI that measures it on an ongoing basis because we don't actually know which contributors are male/female. And even if we had that KPI, what users or their behaviours would we reward for having positive impact on that KPI? In real-life, we might reward a customer who introduces a new customer. Or we might have a "finders fee" for someone who introduces a "new hire". How could we reward introducing new women to Wikipedia or encouraging them (perhaps through mentoring) to contribute more? Or would we reward contributors who contribute to articles about "women's topics" (which is addressing the content gendergap rather than the contributor gendergap, which aren't the same thing although many believe them to be closely linked). [I won't disgress into the challenge of deciding how "female" an article topic is.]
On some sites, you need certain badges to "unlock" certain extra functionalities. Are we happy for RfA to be a question of collecting up enough badges? AFAIK, the only auto-implemented badge we have on Wikipedia is the "auto-confirm" (4 days and 10 edits from memory).
I think badges are a good idea but I think the way Wikipedia is implemented makes it challenging to machine-identify desirable behaviours to reward (particularly for social/culture metrics). I think badges have (in the most part) to be machine-calculated and awarded or else it just becomes a popularity content (who's mates with who). I know Aaron (or someone) was toying with the idea of putting a value on each edit (presumably based on some training set of edit data that humans rated). I think it's not impossible to come up with some set of dimensions on which an edit might be valued and, using some human evaluations on a test set, come up with some kind of values for each dimension. It might be rough in the first instance but I guess if it incorporated some ongoing feedback mechanism, it could improve over time.
A cheap thing that we could do (and I don't think we do) is have edit count badges for "last week", "last month", "last year". ATM we only have "lifetime" counts, which makes it hard for the new user to get any quick positive acknowledgements for their efforts.
Kerry
-----Original Message----- From: Wiki-research-l [mailto: wiki-research-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Robert West Sent: Tuesday, 6 October 2015 1:05 PM To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities < wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org> Cc: Marti Johnson mjohnson@wikimedia.org; Patrick Earley < pearley@wikimedia.org>; Jacob Orlowitz ocaasi@wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] Reinforcing or incentivizing desired user behavior
This paper is on using badges to steer user behavior: https://www.cs.cornell.edu/home/kleinber/www13-badges.pdf
On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 7:42 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
Some of us plan to have a conversation at the WCONUSA unconference sessions about ENWP culture. Are there any recommended readings that you could suggest as preparation, particularly on the subject of how to reinforce or incentivize desirable user behavior? I think that Jonathan may have done some research on this topic for the Teahouse, and Ocassi may have for done research for TWA. I'm interested in applicable research as preparation both for the unconference discussion and for my planned video series that intends to inform and
inspire new editors.
Thanks, Pine
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
-- Up for a little language game? -- http://www.unfun.me
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
-- Luis Villa Sr. Director of Community Engagement Wikimedia Foundation *Working towards a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge.*
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Hoi, Ask yourself, what is it that you get with a more "scientific" approach. Is it commitment and involvement and who gets involved when science decides who to select as a special case?
My point is very much that arguments like this forget what it is we want to achieve. A barnstar is from me (my involvement) to someone else (my appreciation). I do not care for scientific when it follows that my involvement is not welcome. Thanks, GerardM
On 19 October 2015 at 07:24, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
As much as I like the barnstar system, it's highly subjective and inconsistent. I'd like to see a more systematic approach. Perhaps this could be combined with some of Aaron's work about edit quality.
On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 2:52 AM, WereSpielChequers < werespielchequers@gmail.com> wrote:
We have a complex set of "badges", some, as Kerry pointed out are available to everyone who qualifies for them, some are based on the statistics of your account - tenure, edit count, articles created. Others are based on things you've been awarded by others, the bronze stars for featured articles, but also userboxes for everything from userrights to number of DYKs. Barnstars are a key subset that can only be awarded by others. There are Barnstars available for a huge range of things, even civility and diplomacy. It would be interesting and probably salutary to do a study on which Barnstars are awarded, my suspicion is that the anti vandalism ones may well be the most frequent. I would also encourage everyone to lead by example and actually use the Barnstar system for people who have made extraordinary contributions. But be careful not to devalue the system by for example giving one to everyone who reports a bug in visual editor - in the past when we had lots of adolescents and teenagers in the community there was a craze for creating secret pages with a Barnstar award for finding them; so if you give out Barnstars too freely you risk being thought of as the sort of immature adolescent that usually makes that sort of mistake.
Regards
Jonathan
On 14 Oct 2015, at 02:42, Luis Villa lvilla@wikimedia.org wrote:
I think there's a lot to be done there (probably will blog soon about my weekend experimenting with Genius, which had pretty extensive systems for this).
It is an interesting prioritization question: doing it thoroughly/systematically would require a lot of software investment, especially since we don't have structured conversation pages (which are the basis for a lot of similar contributor recognition systems).
Luis
On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 5:25 AM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Kerry,
Thanks so much for the comments. I will bring up the subjects of badges and cobtributor KPIs with Luis and/or Lila when I have a minute to refine my thinking.
Pine On Oct 6, 2015 2:33 AM, "Kerry Raymond" kerry.raymond@gmail.com wrote:
Certainly there are a lot of sites with badges that do seem to encourage certain behaviour. On Wikipedia, we have edit count and that seems to generate editcountitis which (when gamed) tends to favour lots of little housekeeping edits over content edits. But one of the things with badges on most sites is that the site assigns the badge. Here on Wikipedia, I can put any badge I want on my User Page (the pre-existing ones are mostly edit-count based but I can roll my own as some users do). Indeed as I discovered, other people can put badges on my user page and presumably take them away. As edit count is our primary KPI, it doesn't address "cultural" attributes. Should we be making more of an effort to promote other KPIs that emphasise positive behaviour like thanks (given and received)? Unfortunately our main interaction mechanism is writing on talk pages and it's hard to tell whether any contribution on a talk page is a "positive" behaviour or a negative one (short of some kind of sentiment analysis). This is an unfortunate consequence of using a wiki for a conversation rather than some more purpose-built tool.
In principle one takes a KPI and then creates a badge to reward a behaviour that improves that KPI. But that's all easier said than done.
For content improvements, there are probably some things we can do. For example, I presume looking at the edit deltas, we could tell if an edit to an article added a citation (a pair of ref tag in the new version that weren't there in the old version). Adding citations is a desirable behaviour that we could report on and give badges for (although obviously whether or not that citation in any way supports the claim cannot be determined, so the "gaming" of this is to add random citations to offline sources to lots of articles, which cannot be easily verified). In which case maybe we need to give a better score to an online citation on that grounds it is more likely to be verifiable).
But positive "culture" or positive social behaviour is harder to detect and reward. For example, we'd like to close the gendergap but firstly we don't have KPI that measures it on an ongoing basis because we don't actually know which contributors are male/female. And even if we had that KPI, what users or their behaviours would we reward for having positive impact on that KPI? In real-life, we might reward a customer who introduces a new customer. Or we might have a "finders fee" for someone who introduces a "new hire". How could we reward introducing new women to Wikipedia or encouraging them (perhaps through mentoring) to contribute more? Or would we reward contributors who contribute to articles about "women's topics" (which is addressing the content gendergap rather than the contributor gendergap, which aren't the same thing although many believe them to be closely linked). [I won't disgress into the challenge of deciding how "female" an article topic is.]
On some sites, you need certain badges to "unlock" certain extra functionalities. Are we happy for RfA to be a question of collecting up enough badges? AFAIK, the only auto-implemented badge we have on Wikipedia is the "auto-confirm" (4 days and 10 edits from memory).
I think badges are a good idea but I think the way Wikipedia is implemented makes it challenging to machine-identify desirable behaviours to reward (particularly for social/culture metrics). I think badges have (in the most part) to be machine-calculated and awarded or else it just becomes a popularity content (who's mates with who). I know Aaron (or someone) was toying with the idea of putting a value on each edit (presumably based on some training set of edit data that humans rated). I think it's not impossible to come up with some set of dimensions on which an edit might be valued and, using some human evaluations on a test set, come up with some kind of values for each dimension. It might be rough in the first instance but I guess if it incorporated some ongoing feedback mechanism, it could improve over time.
A cheap thing that we could do (and I don't think we do) is have edit count badges for "last week", "last month", "last year". ATM we only have "lifetime" counts, which makes it hard for the new user to get any quick positive acknowledgements for their efforts.
Kerry
-----Original Message----- From: Wiki-research-l [mailto: wiki-research-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Robert West Sent: Tuesday, 6 October 2015 1:05 PM To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities < wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org> Cc: Marti Johnson mjohnson@wikimedia.org; Patrick Earley < pearley@wikimedia.org>; Jacob Orlowitz ocaasi@wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] Reinforcing or incentivizing desired user behavior
This paper is on using badges to steer user behavior: https://www.cs.cornell.edu/home/kleinber/www13-badges.pdf
On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 7:42 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
Some of us plan to have a conversation at the WCONUSA unconference sessions about ENWP culture. Are there any recommended readings that you could suggest as preparation, particularly on the subject of how to reinforce or incentivize desirable user behavior? I think that Jonathan may have done some research on this topic for the Teahouse, and Ocassi may have for done research for TWA. I'm interested in applicable research as preparation both for the unconference discussion and for my planned video series that intends to inform and
inspire new editors.
Thanks, Pine
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
-- Up for a little language game? -- http://www.unfun.me
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
-- Luis Villa Sr. Director of Community Engagement Wikimedia Foundation *Working towards a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge.*
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
As Gerard points out a highly subjective and inconsistent rewards system is an inevitable consequence of a volunteer based community. I'd add that a one side of the inconsistency, people being overlooked, is something we can work on by finding better tools. For example before the loss of toolserver and the labs problems we used had a list of overlooked Autopatroller prospects https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Database_reports/Editors_eligible_for_Autopatrol_privilege&oldid=613695217 that HJ Mitchell and I used to work through. Other aspects of inconsistency are a great opportunity for researchers to investigate - and if research identifies a group of overlooked editors then the community will likely respond. Another side of the inconsistency, people cheapening the system by self awarding barnstars or handing them out too freely, is something the community has various mechanisms to handle; and those who would try and change this area need to be aware of that.
Of course you can have elements of the reward system that are less subjective and inconsistent, for example service level awards, FA stars and so forth. I rather suspect that the barnstar system is the subjective and inconsistent residue left after many aspects of the reward system were codified and separated from the original barnstar system, but I'll let someone else earn a PhD by proving or disproving that one!
On 19 October 2015 at 10:07, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Ask yourself, what is it that you get with a more "scientific" approach. Is it commitment and involvement and who gets involved when science decides who to select as a special case?
My point is very much that arguments like this forget what it is we want to achieve. A barnstar is from me (my involvement) to someone else (my appreciation). I do not care for scientific when it follows that my involvement is not welcome. Thanks, GerardM
On 19 October 2015 at 07:24, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
As much as I like the barnstar system, it's highly subjective and inconsistent. I'd like to see a more systematic approach. Perhaps this could be combined with some of Aaron's work about edit quality.
On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 2:52 AM, WereSpielChequers < werespielchequers@gmail.com> wrote:
We have a complex set of "badges", some, as Kerry pointed out are available to everyone who qualifies for them, some are based on the statistics of your account - tenure, edit count, articles created. Others are based on things you've been awarded by others, the bronze stars for featured articles, but also userboxes for everything from userrights to number of DYKs. Barnstars are a key subset that can only be awarded by others. There are Barnstars available for a huge range of things, even civility and diplomacy. It would be interesting and probably salutary to do a study on which Barnstars are awarded, my suspicion is that the anti vandalism ones may well be the most frequent. I would also encourage everyone to lead by example and actually use the Barnstar system for people who have made extraordinary contributions. But be careful not to devalue the system by for example giving one to everyone who reports a bug in visual editor - in the past when we had lots of adolescents and teenagers in the community there was a craze for creating secret pages with a Barnstar award for finding them; so if you give out Barnstars too freely you risk being thought of as the sort of immature adolescent that usually makes that sort of mistake.
Regards
Jonathan
On 14 Oct 2015, at 02:42, Luis Villa lvilla@wikimedia.org wrote:
I think there's a lot to be done there (probably will blog soon about my weekend experimenting with Genius, which had pretty extensive systems for this).
It is an interesting prioritization question: doing it thoroughly/systematically would require a lot of software investment, especially since we don't have structured conversation pages (which are the basis for a lot of similar contributor recognition systems).
Luis
On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 5:25 AM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Kerry,
Thanks so much for the comments. I will bring up the subjects of badges and cobtributor KPIs with Luis and/or Lila when I have a minute to refine my thinking.
Pine On Oct 6, 2015 2:33 AM, "Kerry Raymond" kerry.raymond@gmail.com wrote:
Certainly there are a lot of sites with badges that do seem to encourage certain behaviour. On Wikipedia, we have edit count and that seems to generate editcountitis which (when gamed) tends to favour lots of little housekeeping edits over content edits. But one of the things with badges on most sites is that the site assigns the badge. Here on Wikipedia, I can put any badge I want on my User Page (the pre-existing ones are mostly edit-count based but I can roll my own as some users do). Indeed as I discovered, other people can put badges on my user page and presumably take them away. As edit count is our primary KPI, it doesn't address "cultural" attributes. Should we be making more of an effort to promote other KPIs that emphasise positive behaviour like thanks (given and received)? Unfortunately our main interaction mechanism is writing on talk pages and it's hard to tell whether any contribution on a talk page is a "positive" behaviour or a negative one (short of some kind of sentiment analysis). This is an unfortunate consequence of using a wiki for a conversation rather than some more purpose-built tool.
In principle one takes a KPI and then creates a badge to reward a behaviour that improves that KPI. But that's all easier said than done.
For content improvements, there are probably some things we can do. For example, I presume looking at the edit deltas, we could tell if an edit to an article added a citation (a pair of ref tag in the new version that weren't there in the old version). Adding citations is a desirable behaviour that we could report on and give badges for (although obviously whether or not that citation in any way supports the claim cannot be determined, so the "gaming" of this is to add random citations to offline sources to lots of articles, which cannot be easily verified). In which case maybe we need to give a better score to an online citation on that grounds it is more likely to be verifiable).
But positive "culture" or positive social behaviour is harder to detect and reward. For example, we'd like to close the gendergap but firstly we don't have KPI that measures it on an ongoing basis because we don't actually know which contributors are male/female. And even if we had that KPI, what users or their behaviours would we reward for having positive impact on that KPI? In real-life, we might reward a customer who introduces a new customer. Or we might have a "finders fee" for someone who introduces a "new hire". How could we reward introducing new women to Wikipedia or encouraging them (perhaps through mentoring) to contribute more? Or would we reward contributors who contribute to articles about "women's topics" (which is addressing the content gendergap rather than the contributor gendergap, which aren't the same thing although many believe them to be closely linked). [I won't disgress into the challenge of deciding how "female" an article topic is.]
On some sites, you need certain badges to "unlock" certain extra functionalities. Are we happy for RfA to be a question of collecting up enough badges? AFAIK, the only auto-implemented badge we have on Wikipedia is the "auto-confirm" (4 days and 10 edits from memory).
I think badges are a good idea but I think the way Wikipedia is implemented makes it challenging to machine-identify desirable behaviours to reward (particularly for social/culture metrics). I think badges have (in the most part) to be machine-calculated and awarded or else it just becomes a popularity content (who's mates with who). I know Aaron (or someone) was toying with the idea of putting a value on each edit (presumably based on some training set of edit data that humans rated). I think it's not impossible to come up with some set of dimensions on which an edit might be valued and, using some human evaluations on a test set, come up with some kind of values for each dimension. It might be rough in the first instance but I guess if it incorporated some ongoing feedback mechanism, it could improve over time.
A cheap thing that we could do (and I don't think we do) is have edit count badges for "last week", "last month", "last year". ATM we only have "lifetime" counts, which makes it hard for the new user to get any quick positive acknowledgements for their efforts.
Kerry
-----Original Message----- From: Wiki-research-l [mailto: wiki-research-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Robert West Sent: Tuesday, 6 October 2015 1:05 PM To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities < wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org> Cc: Marti Johnson mjohnson@wikimedia.org; Patrick Earley < pearley@wikimedia.org>; Jacob Orlowitz ocaasi@wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] Reinforcing or incentivizing desired user behavior
This paper is on using badges to steer user behavior: https://www.cs.cornell.edu/home/kleinber/www13-badges.pdf
On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 7:42 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
Some of us plan to have a conversation at the WCONUSA unconference sessions about ENWP culture. Are there any recommended readings that you could suggest as preparation, particularly on the subject of how to reinforce or incentivize desirable user behavior? I think that Jonathan may have done some research on this topic for the Teahouse, and Ocassi may have for done research for TWA. I'm interested in applicable research as preparation both for the unconference discussion and for my planned video series that intends to inform
and inspire new editors.
Thanks, Pine
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
-- Up for a little language game? -- http://www.unfun.me
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
-- Luis Villa Sr. Director of Community Engagement Wikimedia Foundation *Working towards a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge.*
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Hi Pine,
The book *Building Successful Online Communities: Evidence Based Social Design*[1] provides a great synthesis of concepts from economics, sociology, and cognitive psychology as they apply to the design of projects like Wikipedia. In fact, Wikipedia is one of the primary case studies used in the book. They have several chapters that focus on motivation techniques/tools. The book is easy to skim and apply!
Hope that helps, Jonathan
1. https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/building-successful-online-communities
On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 7:42 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
Some of us plan to have a conversation at the WCONUSA unconference sessions about ENWP culture. Are there any recommended readings that you could suggest as preparation, particularly on the subject of how to reinforce or incentivize desirable user behavior? I think that Jonathan may have done some research on this topic for the Teahouse, and Ocassi may have for done research for TWA. I'm interested in applicable research as preparation both for the unconference discussion and for my planned video series that intends to inform and inspire new editors.
Thanks, Pine
Hoi, There was a presentation about game theory at WIkimania in London... Quite interesting. Thanks, GerardM
On 6 October 2015 at 17:29, Jonathan Morgan jmorgan@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi Pine,
The book *Building Successful Online Communities: Evidence Based Social Design*[1] provides a great synthesis of concepts from economics, sociology, and cognitive psychology as they apply to the design of projects like Wikipedia. In fact, Wikipedia is one of the primary case studies used in the book. They have several chapters that focus on motivation techniques/tools. The book is easy to skim and apply!
Hope that helps, Jonathan
On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 7:42 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
Some of us plan to have a conversation at the WCONUSA unconference sessions about ENWP culture. Are there any recommended readings that you could suggest as preparation, particularly on the subject of how to reinforce or incentivize desirable user behavior? I think that Jonathan may have done some research on this topic for the Teahouse, and Ocassi may have for done research for TWA. I'm interested in applicable research as preparation both for the unconference discussion and for my planned video series that intends to inform and inspire new editors.
Thanks, Pine
-- Jonathan T. Morgan Senior Design Researcher Wikimedia Foundation User:Jmorgan (WMF) https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jmorgan_(WMF)
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Hello, that's this one: http://www.raphkoster.com/tag/wikimania/
2015-10-06 20:42 GMT+02:00 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, There was a presentation about game theory at WIkimania in London... Quite interesting. Thanks, GerardM
On 6 October 2015 at 17:29, Jonathan Morgan jmorgan@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi Pine,
The book Building Successful Online Communities: Evidence Based Social Design[1] provides a great synthesis of concepts from economics, sociology, and cognitive psychology as they apply to the design of projects like Wikipedia. In fact, Wikipedia is one of the primary case studies used in the book. They have several chapters that focus on motivation techniques/tools. The book is easy to skim and apply!
Hope that helps, Jonathan
On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 7:42 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
Some of us plan to have a conversation at the WCONUSA unconference sessions about ENWP culture. Are there any recommended readings that you could suggest as preparation, particularly on the subject of how to reinforce or incentivize desirable user behavior? I think that Jonathan may have done some research on this topic for the Teahouse, and Ocassi may have for done research for TWA. I'm interested in applicable research as preparation both for the unconference discussion and for my planned video series that intends to inform and inspire new editors.
Thanks, Pine
-- Jonathan T. Morgan Senior Design Researcher Wikimedia Foundation User:Jmorgan (WMF)
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
shazam: http://www.raphkoster.com/games/presentations/wikipedia-is-a-game/
*Edward Saperia* Founder Newspeak House http://www.nwspk.com email edsaperia@gmail.com • facebook http://www.facebook.com/edsaperia • twitter http://www.twitter.com/edsaperia • 07796955572 133-135 Bethnal Green Road, E2 7DG
On 6 October 2015 at 19:42, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, There was a presentation about game theory at WIkimania in London... Quite interesting. Thanks, GerardM
On 6 October 2015 at 17:29, Jonathan Morgan jmorgan@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi Pine,
The book *Building Successful Online Communities: Evidence Based Social Design*[1] provides a great synthesis of concepts from economics, sociology, and cognitive psychology as they apply to the design of projects like Wikipedia. In fact, Wikipedia is one of the primary case studies used in the book. They have several chapters that focus on motivation techniques/tools. The book is easy to skim and apply!
Hope that helps, Jonathan
On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 7:42 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
Some of us plan to have a conversation at the WCONUSA unconference sessions about ENWP culture. Are there any recommended readings that you could suggest as preparation, particularly on the subject of how to reinforce or incentivize desirable user behavior? I think that Jonathan may have done some research on this topic for the Teahouse, and Ocassi may have for done research for TWA. I'm interested in applicable research as preparation both for the unconference discussion and for my planned video series that intends to inform and inspire new editors.
Thanks, Pine
-- Jonathan T. Morgan Senior Design Researcher Wikimedia Foundation User:Jmorgan (WMF) https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jmorgan_(WMF)
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
I've started to read BSOC and I'm thoroughly appreciating it. I think that Wes is looking into notes from the former Growth Team and considering how to add contributor growth as a measure of succeess for current Product teams. I'd like to suggest that anyone in Product who is interested in the subject of contributor growth make at least a brief pass through this book.
Thanks so much for the recommendation, J-mo.
Pine On Oct 6, 2015 08:29, "Jonathan Morgan" jmorgan@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi Pine,
The book *Building Successful Online Communities: Evidence Based Social Design*[1] provides a great synthesis of concepts from economics, sociology, and cognitive psychology as they apply to the design of projects like Wikipedia. In fact, Wikipedia is one of the primary case studies used in the book. They have several chapters that focus on motivation techniques/tools. The book is easy to skim and apply!
Hope that helps, Jonathan
On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 7:42 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
Some of us plan to have a conversation at the WCONUSA unconference sessions about ENWP culture. Are there any recommended readings that you could suggest as preparation, particularly on the subject of how to reinforce or incentivize desirable user behavior? I think that Jonathan may have done some research on this topic for the Teahouse, and Ocassi may have for done research for TWA. I'm interested in applicable research as preparation both for the unconference discussion and for my planned video series that intends to inform and inspire new editors.
Thanks, Pine
-- Jonathan T. Morgan Senior Design Researcher Wikimedia Foundation User:Jmorgan (WMF) https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jmorgan_(WMF)
It really is a good book :)
And I'm glad to hear that Wes is looking into next steps re: supporting contributor growth. This kind of fell by the wayside within the organization, and I think it's a great time to revisit it as an organizational priority.
Thanks Pine! Jonathan
On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 4:25 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
I've started to read BSOC and I'm thoroughly appreciating it. I think that Wes is looking into notes from the former Growth Team and considering how to add contributor growth as a measure of succeess for current Product teams. I'd like to suggest that anyone in Product who is interested in the subject of contributor growth make at least a brief pass through this book.
Thanks so much for the recommendation, J-mo.
Pine On Oct 6, 2015 08:29, "Jonathan Morgan" jmorgan@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi Pine,
The book *Building Successful Online Communities: Evidence Based Social Design*[1] provides a great synthesis of concepts from economics, sociology, and cognitive psychology as they apply to the design of projects like Wikipedia. In fact, Wikipedia is one of the primary case studies used in the book. They have several chapters that focus on motivation techniques/tools. The book is easy to skim and apply!
Hope that helps, Jonathan
On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 7:42 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
Some of us plan to have a conversation at the WCONUSA unconference sessions about ENWP culture. Are there any recommended readings that you could suggest as preparation, particularly on the subject of how to reinforce or incentivize desirable user behavior? I think that Jonathan may have done some research on this topic for the Teahouse, and Ocassi may have for done research for TWA. I'm interested in applicable research as preparation both for the unconference discussion and for my planned video series that intends to inform and inspire new editors.
Thanks, Pine
-- Jonathan T. Morgan Senior Design Researcher Wikimedia Foundation User:Jmorgan (WMF) https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jmorgan_(WMF)
wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org